Over on Pundit a little while ago, Tim Watkin was arguing that Hosking, Henry, Espiner, Williams, Garner and Campbell were all 'talented question-askers' who have 'earned it' with their 'broadcast skill'. I asked him what exactly Hosking 'does' and what his 'skill' is. Didn't get a very convincing answer.

And let's not forget another McCully special - refocusing New Zealand's aid programme away from a focus on poverty elimination, without actually bothering to review the effectiveness of the existing programme (short version here).

Quite right – and neither can any democratic process. But threaten the commercial arm which benefits from the folly – and you just watch how quickly those in power respond. Much of the power the public has lies in its spending power.

So you don't think anything can be solved by democratic processes and boycotts are the way to change things? Would you be happy with the so-called "Sensible Sentencing Trust" picketing the offices of defence laywers? This approach to social change is a dead-end street that doesn't do anything to change people's views or attitudes.

The idea of boycotting or picketing legal firms because of the position they advocate for in a trial is a dangerous suggestion. It might sound superficially appealing in relation to this case, but think about, for example, a defence lawyer who defends an unpopular client to ensure he or she gets a fair trial - would it be OK to boycott or picket that lawyer or firm?

Those who represent Andrew Little’s rejection of that CGT policy as a “corner” with no ability to exit – ever – with any type of policy regarding taxation on capital gains, are the ones now stifling the party from its potential further consideration of the matter.

Fact: the public voted on a whole range of issues (and personalities), and I'd like to see some evidence that the CGT was an important factor in the election.

I'm not trying to paint Labour into a corner - I'd love to see Rob say that they are still thinking about options for a CGT or other ways of dealing with property speculation that deal with the issue comprehensively rather than just focusing on overseas-based speculators.

Thanks for answering my questions, Rob. At least now I know that Labour is running an explicitly nationalist policy, even if I'm not happy with it. You say of onshore speculation that, despite the lack of a productivity gain, "gains accrue within the New Zealand economy". I'm always wary of that kind of very passive language. To whom do the gains accrue? Not to most ordinary New Zealanders, I suggest.

Katherine, you say any imbalances involved in domestic speculation can be addressed internally through our political system. I'm asking Rob what the Labour Party plans to do to address these imbalances. He appears to be telling me they will be doing nothing because they are only concerned about offshore speculation.

Others have explained more eloquently than I can why what Labour did in releasing this shoddy "data" was so wrong. (As a side issue, Phil Twyford has described the person who leaked the data as a "whistleblower". A whistleblower is someone who exposes illegal or unethical behaviour within an organisation, not just someone who leaks information you might find interesting.)

My questions for Rob are: Isn't property speculation the issue, rather than where someone comes from? Is property speculation OK if done by New Zealand residents? And most importantly: what actual policies does Labour have to address property speculation, particularly now that it has backed away from a capital gains tax?